4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #91

[arielilane]

@BrianEntin

After the demolition of the Idaho house where the murders happened - I have learned the debris was transported and buried at a solid processing facility. Officials wanted it immediately buried amid concerns people would attempt to take pieces or "souvenirs" of the house.

10:06 AM · Jan 3, 2024

https://twitter.com/x/status/1742563185285079154

Demolished Idaho home buried to prevent souvenir hunting​

• 4 University of Idaho students found dead in off-campus home November 2022
• Idaho killings home demolished was ‘gut punch’: Victims’ attorney
• University argued house was a painful reminder to students

Demolished Idaho home buried to prevent souvenir hunting

The remaining pieces of the University Of Idaho house were taken to a solid processing facility and buried deep underground.

www.newsnationnow.com

 

[iamshadow21]

@BrianEntin

After the demolition of the Idaho house where the murders happened - I have learned the debris was transported and buried at a solid processing facility. Officials wanted it immediately buried amid concerns people would attempt to take pieces or "souvenirs" of the house.

10:06 AM · Jan 3, 2024

https://twitter.com/x/status/1742563185285079154

Demolished Idaho home buried to prevent souvenir hunting​

• 4 University of Idaho students found dead in off-campus home November 2022
• Idaho killings home demolished was ‘gut punch’: Victims’ attorney
• University argued house was a painful reminder to students

Demolished Idaho home buried to prevent souvenir hunting

The remaining pieces of the University Of Idaho house were taken to a solid processing facility and buried deep underground.

www.newsnationnow.com

Good. Nobody should be able to flog pieces of it on the dark web to murder ghouls, then.

MOO

 

[Valen2]

The layout of the house is complicated for lack of a better word. If I were a juror i would absolutely feel like it would be necessary for me to go in in order to fully GRASP what happened. Who could have heard what when. What EXACT sounds are we hearing from that ring camera? I would need to wrap my mind around the distances of the rooms, the neighbor’s homes and their locations, the entrances, where he parked, the windows, the stairs, and the layout. I would want to hear what could be heard from upstairs. I would NEED to understand. It’s a WEIRD case.

I can visualize 3D pretty well. I make CADs for interior design, but I STILL can’t tell when looking at some CADs if the distance is as sufficient as I want it to be from say shower to counter or toilet to wall. & I need to go to the site and measure. There are standard acceptable minimum distances, but I have to get in a client’s head, so each job is different. What seems absurdly spacious to me is just right to some, so when I see it on a CAD, it sometimes looks foreign - I’m not sure how it big or small the distance will FEEL or what you can DO in it. If that makes sense. Of course if i measure and process oh ok i can put a yoga mat there blah blah blah. But it’s faster and more efficient and more SURE/ DOUBTPROOF to simply be IN the actual space.
JMO

The problem is that they removed floorboards, carpet, pieces of walls, and all furniture. It would not sound the same or look the same. You wouldn't be able to determine anything about that night based on the state of the property after they released it. You wouldn't even be able to time how long it takes to get from one point to another because it is so fundamentally different. Even excluding those things, jurors are not allowed to run experiments. You would not be allowed to measure distances. You would not be able to make noises to see what could be heard from where (even though it wouldn't be accurate without flooring and walls).

 

[al66pine]

Atty Advising Parents? Are They Following Advice?

They are accusing the University of ignoring them, like yelling in a void. They don't feel it is giving enough voice to the "children."

Clearly tearing down the house distresses them. They give a whole list of all these "tests" the jury could do in the house.

If I were an attorney and these were my clients I would help them to feel less anxious about the demolition because I would explain why the prosecution can't use the house according to case law - could possibly cause a mistrial.

And I would explain what a jury walk-through is, and no one talks, asks questions or does tests. You go in as "one body" they call it, A tight group silently "crowding" through a creepy house.

In court they will see 3D and photos of how it was that night and they will have the prosecutors right there to explain everything.

I am only guessing that Gray hasn't cleared up the misinformation over the whole subject. I have never seen people demanding to keep a house that cannot be used for a trial and an attorney who seems to go along with it.... *shakes head*

2 Cents

@CoolCats Great points about Jury View procedure.
Shaking my head w you.

 

[Wallendo]

The previous owners (I believe there were two) can write off fair market value on the house - although I wonder how the fair market values of a murder house torn apart by law enforcement would be assessed. The University of Idaho gets land for the basic cost of demolition. The University also gets an eyesore away from the campus. Once the trial is over they can sell the land or use it for some other purpose.

The university's only obligations are to its students, faculty and staff as well as to the state of Idaho. There is no legal obligation to the families of the victims. I know that many here have a strong emotional attachment to the victims, but, are they any more or less entitled to a permanent memorial at the crime scene than other murder victims?

Would the family members opposed to tearing down the house ever be satisfied with tearing down the house in the future? I suspect that the house itself is in some ways a memorial, and tearing it down feels like closing a chapter on their children's lives. For these victims (the families), this tragedy will last the rest of their lives.

 

[Boxer]

The layout of the house is complicated for lack of a better word. If I were a juror i would absolutely feel like it would be necessary for me to go in in order to fully GRASP what happened. Who could have heard what when. What EXACT sounds are we hearing from that ring camera? I would need to wrap my mind around the distances of the rooms, the neighbor’s homes and their locations, the entrances, where he parked, the windows, the stairs, and the layout. I would want to hear what could be heard from upstairs. I would NEED to understand. It’s a WEIRD case.

I can visualize 3D pretty well. I make CADs for interior design, but I STILL can’t tell when looking at some CADs if the distance is as sufficient as I want it to be from say shower to counter or toilet to wall. & I need to go to the site and measure. There are standard acceptable minimum distances, but I have to get in a client’s head, so each job is different. What seems absurdly spacious to me is just right to some, so when I see it on a CAD, it sometimes looks foreign - I’m not sure how it big or small the distance will FEEL or what you can DO in it. If that makes sense. Of course if i measure and process oh ok i can put a yoga mat there blah blah blah. But it’s faster and more efficient and more SURE/ DOUBTPROOF to simply be IN the actual space.
JMO

Have to trust the jurrors to focus and see the house for what it was.
A front entrance that leads forward to bedrooms and to the left a staircase up to the livingroom and Xanas room.
Then exiting the living room to the hall leading to DMs room, the kitchen and the upstairs to MMs room.

MOO The important parts of the house are:
MMs large window and balcony being close to and at the level of parking spots on Queen Rd.
The path down from the parking spots behind the house, the slider and low windows in the kitchen, the stairs up to MMs room, the path back down to Xana's room and the path exiting Xana's room back through the livingroom and in thos direction getting an eyeful of the Good Times neon sign on the wall, then the path through the hall by DMs room, the exit from the kitchen and up the hill to the parking spots.

 

[Ksfarmer8]

Yes. But its good to remember it is shifted to the citizens of Idaho to pay.

Correct again but a small pittance as to what this Murder Spree and trial will cost the state of Idaho as well as all the heartaches for friends and famlies. JMO

 

[arielilane]

Some may already be familiar with this video (24+ minutes) as first posted at YT, Nov. 2023. However, thought it is worth a repost. Glad to see the lives gone too soon are kept alive, their memories will live on, and the coward, does not prevail. Additionally, linked Gonclaves Family page.

The Goncalves Family Page | Rathdrum ID

The Goncalves Family Page, Rathdrum. 89,308 likes · 10,724 talking about this. This page is to keep up with our family on. People can send love and support. No negativity please.

www.facebook.com

Full interview with Kristi and Steve Goncalves one year after the Moscow Murders​

Steve and Kristi Goncalves are still feeling so much pain one year after their beautiful daughter was murdered.

 

[arielilane]

Sounds like Jack has Murphy.

 

[al66pine]

“United Front” or United Affront?

Per ID. statute re crime victims’ rights:* “(1) Each victim of a criminal…offense shall be:
"(f) Afforded the opportunity to communicate with the prosecution in criminal… offenses.” (sbm)
In various media stories, both Steve G & atty Gray acknowledged Steve meeting w prosecution multiple times.

This morning's NewsNation 4+ min vid** w Entin interviewing atty S. Gray prompted me to wonder about how extensive the “opportunity to communicate” is or should be.

~ 2:30 mark Entin plays an earlier clip w parents Steve & Christie G, recorded ~ a year after the homicides.
As best I can transcribe, in part.
~ 2:30 Steve says ---… demo the house, that's something where I think the families should have been brought in and asked what is your take on it. because we all want to be one
united front...[Plus more.]

A "united front?" To communicate what w the prosecution?
That (some of?) the victims’ parents know more about & have more trial experience w ID criminal law, ID Rules of Evidence, ID Rules of Criminal Procedure, etc. than the Thompson the Latah County Prosecutor since 1992, (two?) his staff atty’s, & (two?) ID Deputy Attorneys General assigned to the case? Ditto, the multiple LE agencies & staff who investigated crime scene?
And that these parents are familiar w ALL the evidence collected & analyzed from 1122 King, as well as the exhibits (scale models, still pix, video, 3D scans, etc) derived from location, & they believe it’s not sufficient to convict BK, the accused, so a jury view is necessary?

So, if parents don’t want 1122 King demolished before trial’s conclusion, the prosecutor should make a motion to prohibit it until then? And the judge should grant the motion, that is, issue an order to prohibit U-ID from demo’ing the site?

^ That’s my impression from what Kaylee’s parents said in this vid and on their public stmt on the topic last week. Could be something else they want to communicate, so ICBWrong.

U-ID is not a party to this crim case, and AFAIK has not entered an appearance. I may be overlooking something, but IDK how the trial court would have “personal jurisdiction” over U-ID to issue such an order. Anyone?

And at ~ 1:30, atty Gray said the “line of communication” btwn Latah Prosecutor’s office and the families, esp’ly w the G family has “always been pretty poor.”
Personally I wonder if these types of MSM appearances will have much healing effect.
imo
=================================
* 19-5306. RIGHTS OF VICTIM DURING INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DISPOSITION OF THE CRIME… “ https://www.ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/VictimsRights.pdf

**Demolished Idaho home buried to prevent souvenir hunting

 

[Sundog]

Yes. But its good to remember it is shifted to the citizens of Idaho to pay.

Do we know if the donation was made to the state by way of the University of Idaho, or was the donation made to the University of Idaho's Foundation? In the state where I live and work, donations of land to a public university are generally made to the university's foundation, not to the state/public entity. And if the donation is made to the state through the university, then it belongs to the state, not the university. So if the university would want to sell it at some point, they would have to make a request to do so through a controlling board of the state legislature to approve it.

If the property was donated to the University Foundation, then that is a private entity and costs to maintain it, demolish it, provide security for it, etc. would come out of nonstate funds through the Foundation.

The University's financial records are publicly accessible but the University's Foundation does not have to make public any of its records of donations as a private entity.

 

[Boxer]

Do we know if the donation was made to the state by way of the University of Idaho, or was the donation made to the University of Idaho's Foundation? In the state where I live and work, donations of land to a public university are generally made to the university's foundation, not to the state/public entity. And if the donation is made to the state through the university, then it belongs to the state, not the university. So if the university would want to sell it at some point, they would have to make a request to do so through a controlling board of the state legislature to approve it.

If the property was donated to the University Foundation, then that is a private entity and costs to maintain it, demolish it, provide security for it, etc. would come out of nonstate funds through the Foundation.

The University's financial records are publicly accessible but the University's Foundation does not have to make public any of its records of donations as a private entity.

If the foundation a non-profit it would also have to have public records.

 

[Sundog]

If the foundation a non-profit it would also have to have public records.

In many states, university foundations, even though they are non-profits, are not considered to be "public bodies" and are therefore exempt from the state's sunshine laws. Also, for those states that do require their university-affiliated foundations to meet the requirements of their state's sunshine laws, some information on donors may be kept confidential.

States are all over the map on this, even though state legislatures for a number of years now have been moving to remove exemptions from university foundations. In California about fifteen or so years ago at the public universities, we had ongoing battles with the state legislature about this (for both the University of California system and the California State University system). Also each state defines things and exempts (or not) these non-profit foundations differently.

Edited a word in first line to correct

 

[Cool Cats]

Yes. But its good to remember it is shifted to the citizens of Idaho to pay.

Do we know if the donation was made to the state by way of the University of Idaho, or was the donation made to the University of Idaho's Foundation? In the state where I live and work, donations of land to a public university are generally made to the university's foundation, not to the state/public entity. And if the donation is made to the state through the university, then it belongs to the state, not the university. So if the university would want to sell it at some point, they would have to make a request to do so through a controlling board of the state legislature to approve it.

If the property was donated to the University Foundation, then that is a private entity and costs to maintain it, demolish it, provide security for it, etc. would come out of nonstate funds through the Foundation.

The University's financial records are publicly accessible but the University's Foundation does not have to make public any of its records of donations as a private entity.

Yup, taxpayers are paying for costs related to the house.

The Idaho State Government gets their money from taxpayers and the Idaho State Government set aside a million dollars specifically for the University.

This money is paying $700 a day for security - for the now empty lot. Most likely this money has paid other costs related to the house after the University acquired it. The demolition was done at a discounted rate.

Once the property is graded and ready to plant to grass, in the New Year, the University will drop the security.

The house was donated by the company that owned it at the time of the murders, listed as an LLC based in Colorado.

Crews demolish King Road house where 4 University of Idaho students were killed

Thursday's demolition served as a milestone in the case of four University of Idaho students who were brutally killed inside the home.

www.wnep.com

University of Idaho president's family once owned home where students were murdered

MOSCOW, Idaho - The president of the University of Idaho who guided his university through the trauma of four murdered students last fall has a family connection to the property

www.kxly.com

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Just as many felt the death penalty shouldn't be invoked just because the families request it, the house shouldn't remain just because the families request it either.

HOWEVER, the U of ID knew what it was doing buying that property. IMO, they bought it with one intention and one intention only -- to get rid of it. And ya, I can buy it was partly to help their students heal, but the driving force, IMO, is that it's bad for business. And that's fine, they have to look after their own interests and all that, but I for one am not feeling bad for them. If they didn't want to be put in this situation, they shouldn't have bought it.

JMO.

I think too much attention is being paid to trauma intervention versus closure. Closure I get. Get rid of the house and close this chapter of U of ID's and Moscow's history following trial. But the trauma doesn't go away just because the house is gone. The symbolic reminder goes away, which may be helpful to some students, but for others, the healing impact of the demo is way overblown, IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Just as many felt the death penalty shouldn't be invoked just because the families request it, the house shouldn't remain just because the families request it either.

HOWEVER, the U of ID knew what it was doing buying that property. IMO, they bought it with one intention and one intention only -- to get rid of it. And ya, I can buy it was partly to help their students heal, but the driving force, IMO, is that it's bad for business. And that's fine, they have to look after their own interests and all that, but I for one am not feeling bad for them. If they didn't want to be put in this situation, they shouldn't have bought it.

JMO.

I think too much attention is being paid to trauma intervention versus closure. Closure I get. Get rid of the house and close this chapter of U of ID's and Moscow's history following trial. But the trauma doesn't go away just because the house is gone. The symbolic reminder goes away, which may be helpful to some students, but for others, the healing impact of the demo is way overblown, IMO.

No they did not buy the house. House was donated to the University by the Colorado LLC who owned it at that time.

The University had to get rid of the house the only question was WHEN. Before or after trial? These types of house demolitions are normal. Could they put something in it's place? Yes, if done with dignity and all due respect.

In my opinion there are many reasons the University had to get rid of that house:

1.) The city would most likely not allow an uninhabitable boarded up house to just sit in the neighborhood for years and years.

2.) Security costs $700 a day.

3.) Would be inappropriate for the University to make any money off the house by renting or selling.

4.) Not feasible to maintain all the costs of maintaining the property including taxes, yard care, repair, routine maintenance, security, and don't forget liability insurance and regular property insurance - to name a few. All this expenditure just to maintain a long term vacant house.

5.) House has become a liability and nuisance due to all the tourists and amateur arm chair detectives coming to gawk at it and take photos and videos of it. Usually driving clear across the country.

6.) House would never go back to just being a normal house in the neighborhood. A tainted property.

7.) Bad for property values in that area.

8.) Dangerous both physically and financially. Someone could get hurt on the property (sneaking around) and sue the University.

2 Cents, my opinion that the University had to demolish the house.

 

[Boxer]

In many states, university foundations, even though they are non-profits, are not considered to be "public bodies" and are therefore exempt from the state's sunshine laws. Also, for those states that do require their university-affiliated foundations to meet the requirements of their state's sunshine laws, some information on donors may be kept confidential.

States are all over the map on this, even though state legislatures for a number of years now have been moving to remove exemptions from university foundations. In California about fifteen or so years ago at the public universities, we had ongoing battles with the state legislature about this (for both the University of California system and the California State University system). Also each state defines things and exempts (or not) these non-profit foundations differently.

Edited a word in first line to correct

Interesting.

 

[Boxer]

No they did not buy the house. House was donated to the University by the Colorado LLC who owned it at that time.

The University had to get rid of the house the only question was WHEN. Before or after trial? These types of house demolitions are normal. Could they put something in it's place? Yes, if done with dignity and all due respect.

In my opinion there are many reasons the University had to get rid of that house:

1.) The city would most likely not allow an uninhabitable boarded up house to just sit in the neighborhood for years and years.

2.) Security costs $700 a day.

3.) Would be inappropriate for the University to make any money off the house by renting or selling.

4.) Not feasible to maintain all the costs of maintaining the property including taxes, yard care, repair, routine maintenance, security, and don't forget liability insurance and regular property insurance - to name a few. All this expenditure just to maintain a long term vacant house.

5.) House has become a liability and nuisance due to all the tourists and amateur arm chair detectives coming to gawk at it and take photos and videos of it. Usually driving clear across the country.

6.) House would never go back to just being a normal house in the neighborhood. A tainted property.

7.) Bad for property values in that area.

8.) Dangerous both physically and financially. Someone could get hurt on the property (sneaking around) and sue the University.

2 Cents, my opinion that the University had to demolish the house.

MOO murder houses are often demo'd and this is a quadruple murder house.

 

[Cool Cats]

MOO murder houses are often demo'd and this is a quadruple murder house.

Yup.

Be crazy to hang on to it. I didn't even mention emotional reasons of which are many.

I think Mr and Mrs G would want it gone, had it stayed up till the verdict....2 Cents

 

[whiterhino]

Yup.

Be crazy to hang on to it. I didn't even mention emotional reasons of which are many.

I think Mr and Mrs G would want it gone, had it stayed up till the verdict....2 Cents

The reasons to demolish the house outweigh any emotional reasons for keeping it intact.

By the time it gets to trial, that house would become seriously problematic and the families would want it gone as an attraction, IMO.

Perhaps the Goncalves family will see one day that Kaylee was moving on from that house, that chapter of her life and the attachment to that house will no longer pull at them. JMO.